Rs. 6.15 Lakh crore written off in last 5 years: Union Finance Ministry in Parliament

Union Finance Ministry informed Parliament that Rs. 6.15 Lakh crore written off in the last 5 years. 

Finance Ministry's reply reads: "There has been no capital infusion in Public Sector Banks (PSBs) by the Government since FY 2022-23. PSBs have significantly improved their financial performance, turning profitable and strengthening their capital position. PSBS now rely on market sources and internal accruals to meet their capital requirements. PSBs have raised *1.79 lakh crore capital from market through equity and bonds since 1.4.2022 till 30.9.2025.'

It added: As per Reserve Bank of India (RBI) data, PSBS have written-off an aggregate loan amount of ₹6,15,647 crore, during the last five financial years and the current financial year till 30.9.2025 (provisional data). Banks write-off NPAs, including, inter-alia, those in respect of which full provisioning has been made on completion of four years, as per RBI guidelines and policy approved by banks' Board. Such write-off does not result in waiver of liabilities of borrowers to repay." 

It pointed out:"Further, recovery in written-off loans is an ongoing process and banks continue pursuing their recovery actions initiated against borrowers under the various recovery mechanism available to them, such as filing of a suit in civil courts or in Debts Recovery Tribunals (DRT), action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act 2002, filing of cases in the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 etc. As provisioning for bad loans have already been done and the write-off process does not entail any actual cash outflow, the bank's liquidity position remains intact. Moreover, banks evaluate/consider the impact of write-offs as part of their regular exercise to clean up their balance-sheet, avail tax benefit, optimise capital base, enhance lending capacity and boost investor sentiments.'

Recalling Advocates' Rights on Advocate's Day

In Re: Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion Or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases And Related Issues (2025), Supreme Court's bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justices K.V. Chandran and N.V. Anjaria delivered the 78-page long judgement dated 31 October, 2025 that investigating agencies cannot summon advocates to seek case details. 

Advocate Day is celebrated on December 3, honouring the contributions of lawyers and legal professionals worldwide. The Advocate's rights were recalled on that occasion 

The Supreme Court has held that an investigating officer cannot summon an advocate to extract case details under Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). The case was heard by the Court under its suo moto jurisdiction based on a reference by a Division Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and N.K. Singh. 

The Division Bench which referred the case had stayed a police summons issued to a Advocate in Ahmedabad. It had observed that the summons raised critical questions and framed two issues: 

-Whether an investigating agency may directly summon a practising advocate where the advocate’s role is limited to advising or appearing for a client in a case? 

-Whether, assuming an exceptional situation exists, any special oversight should be imposed before such a summons is issued? 

The Court answered the first issue in the negative. It held that professional communications are privileged and they cannot be pierced merely because the police wish to seek clarifications from counsel regarding a client’s case. 

The Court pointed out that Section 132, which restricts disclosure of professional communications, sets out limited exceptions where a summon can be issued: if the communication was made in furtherance of an illegal purpose; where facts show a crime or fraud after commencement of the engagement. 

The Court observed that the investigating powers of the police under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) does not override confidentiality obligations created by law. The power to mandate attendance (Section 179) and produce documents (Section 94), must be exercised consistently with the privilege. 

The Court pointed out that investigators should obtain case material through witnesses and documents as the law allows, rather than seek to question counsel about the client.

The Court underlined that summons issued under the exceptions should be approved by a superior officer not below the rank of superintendent of police. The approving officer must record reasons showing why the case fits the proviso to Section 132. 

The Court observed that the privilege is anchored in client confidentiality and applies across litigious and non-litigious engagements. It added that the client confidentiality is traced into the right against self-incrimination under Article 20 of the Constitution.

The Court observed that any requirement to submit a document under Section 94 should be made to the jurisdictional court, and not directly to the police. The court will then rule on permissibility and admissibility in accordance with the law. 

The court should give notice to the affected party and hear objections. If the objections are not satisfactory, the digital equipment should only be accessed in presence of the advocate and the client. They can be assisted by any person who is conversant in digital technology. The Judgement specifically noted that their presence was important to minimise collateral exposure of confidential information relating to other clients.

The Court held that advocates and in-house counsel are distinct, as the latter are not covered under the Advocates Act, 1961. But the BSA recognises confidential communications with legal advisers under Section 134. The Judgement makes it clear that Section 134 is distinct and does not transform employer–in-house communications into the advocate-client privilege contemplated under Section 132.

The Court declined to mandate a universal, magistrate-level pre-approval regime. It found that existing statutory provisions have occupied the field and there is no legislative vacuum to fill by issuing guidelines. Such guidelines would undermine legislative intent. The Judgement noted that summons which appear to fall within the exception, can be tested under the judicial review mechanism.

The Court considered this combination of recorded reasons, prior superior-officer approval, and existing judicial remedies sufficient to check abuse. This would avoid the creation of a parallel pre-clearance system not contemplated by any statute.

The Court set aside the impugned summons. It noted that the stated purpose was to elicit “true details” from the advocate about a client’s case, which is squarely within the zone of professional communications protected by the statute. The summons did not demonstrate facts bringing the case within the proviso to Section 132 , nor was there any indication of prior approval by a superior officer. 

The Court observed that routine summoning of counsel to extract information about clients would impede frank consultation and undermine the statutory scheme which protects professional communications.

Advocate Hitesh Jain, member, 23rd Law Commission resigns before 2027

Advocate Hitesh Jain has resigned as a full-time member of the 23rd Law Commission of India. The Union Law Ministry has confirmed it. His resignation was accepted by the President. Jain was appointed to the 23rd Law Commission of India on April 15, 2025 under the chairmanship of Justice (Retd.) Dinesh Maheshwari, former judge of the Supreme Court. 

According to the official notification issued by the Ministry of Law and Justice (Department of Legal Affairs) on November 13, 2025.

"The President is pleased to accept the resignation of Hitesh Jain, full-time Member, 23rd Law Commission of India with effect from the date of his resignation i.e. afternoon of 29.10.2025," the notification said. 

Jain is a litigation lawyer and Managing Partner at Parinam Law Associates. He was appointed as one of the four full-time members of the 23rd Law Commission on April 15, 2025. 

The Law Commission is an advisory body to the Government of India that undertakes research and recommends legal reforms. The 23rd Law Commission, chaired by Justice Maheshwari, was constituted on September 1, 2024, and has a term of three years, ending on August 31, 2027. The Commission will now operate with one less full-time member.

Since Independence, 22 commissions have submitted 289 reports, influencing major laws like the Code of Criminal Procedure (1973) and the Right to Education Act (2009). Notably, its recommendations are advisory and not binding. The Commission is chaired by a retired Supreme Court or High Court judge, with members including legal scholars and occasionally serving judges.

The 23rd Law Commission's Composition includes full-time chairperson, four full-time members, ex-officio members, the Secretary of Legal Affairs and Legislative Departments, and up to five part-time members. These appointments are made by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet comprising of the Prime Minister and the Home Minister. 

It's responsibilities include identifying obsolete laws, audit laws affecting marginalized groups, advise on referred legislation, review laws in light of Directive Principles, suggest reforms in judicial administration, and assess globalisation’s impact on food security and employment.

The 22nd Law Commission (February 2020 – August 2023) had worked on reports on the Uniform Civil Code and simultaneous elections. It recommended retaining Section 124A (sedition law) with clarifications due to internal security concerns.

Dr. Hiren Joshi, Joint Secretary/OSD (Comms & IT), PMO is in news

Dr. Hiren Joshi (54), Joint Secretary/OSD (Communications & Information Technology), PMO is in news without details. 

An electronics engineer from Pune with a PhD from the Indian Institute of Information Technology & Management, Gwalior, Joshi was an assistant professor at the Manikya Lal Verma Textile and Engineering College, Bhilwara. Dr. Joshi had over 18 years of teaching experience before he was hand-picked by Narendra Modi to handle his digital presence in 2008.

Prior to his inexplicable and intriguing departure, Modi's social media usage, were conducted under Joshi's supervision. He used to provide him a daily report on online activities at 11.30 pm. He used to shortlist 100 of the thousands of messages marked to Modi on his social media accounts.

Dr. Joshi used presented papers on analytical tools and new configurations in mobile architecture at national conferences before he was roped in by Modi. 

"The competent authority has approved the appointment of Shri Hiren Joshi as OSD (C&IT) to the Prime Minister in Level-14 (JS Rank) w.e.f 14.06.2019 on co-terminus basis or until further orders, whichever is earlier,” read the PMO note from July 2019 when he was elevated in the PMO where he was working since 2014.

Navneet Kumar Sehgal resigns as chairperson, Prasar Bharati Board amid speculations

Navneet Sehgal, the retired UP IAS officer of 1988 batch who hired Sudhir Chaudhary for ₹15 crores submitted his resignation as chairperson of the Prasar Bharati Board. The Union information and broadcasting ministry accepted his resignation on December 3. He tendered his resignation on December 2, 2025. 

The abrupt resignation "has set off a wave of speculation in official circles, particularly since no reason has been made public. Within government corridors, some insiders hint that the resignation may not have been entirely voluntary." 

Sehgal was appointed for a three-year term or until he turned 70. 

Prasar Bharti runs Doordarshan broadcasting service and Akashvani radio service among other He was appointed to this post in March 2024. Unlike him, his predecessor A Surya Prakash, completed his term in February 2020. Sehgal was appointed three-years after the departure of Surya Prakash. 

Unlike Surya Prakash, Sehgal had no experience in media. He was chosen by a three-member selection committee headed by then Vice President and Rajya Sabha chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar, along with Press Council of India chairperson Ranjana Prakash Desai and a presidential nominee. 

Sehgal had altered DD News during his brief tenure and outsourced shows DD. He was reportedly close to a business tycoon. 

Will Surya Prakash (75), the author of What Ails Indian Parliament or Ram Bahadur Rai (79), the author of Bharatiya Samvidhan: Ankahi Kahani be asked to suggest a suitable candidate to head Prasar Bharati Board in order to restore the autonomy of the Board? Or will there be yet another three-year vacancy? 

Land dispute of civil nature, cannot be turned into a criminal case

In Mala Choudhary & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 870), Supreme Court held in its 21-pagee long judgement dated July 18, 2025 that a land dispute, which is civil in nature, cannot be turned into a criminal case simply to pressurise the other side. The Supreme Court imposed a cost of Rs. 10,00,000/- on the Complainant for misusing the process of criminal law in a case which was of purely civil nature.

A Criminal Appeal was filed against the final Order of the Telangana High Court, which dismissed a Petition seeking quashing of an FIR.

The Division Bench comprising of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed: “We feel that rather than awarding interest to the complainant, it is a fit case wherein the complainant should be penalized with exemplary cost for misusing the process of criminal law in a case which was of purely civil nature.”

The Division Bench said that the High Court acted with absolute pedantic approach, while disposing of the quashing the petition filed by the Appellants in the cryptic manner, without even touching the merits of the case.

Supreme Court Against Criminalisation of Purely Civil Disputes 

The Supreme Court in Mala Choudhary & Anr. vs. The State of Telangana & Anr., reiterated that Courts must vigilantly prevent the criminal justice system from being weaponised to settle what are essentially civil disputes; and High Courts, while exercising power under Section 482 CrPC, owe a duty to render reasoned orders – a perfunctory dismissal amounts to jurisdictional error susceptible to correction under Article 136.

The appellants, a 70-year-old widow of a retired Major General and her daughter (both Delhi residents), faced criminal proceedings in Telangana over an oral land sale arrangement that had simultaneously spawned a civil suit for specific performance. The Supreme Court found the FIR and subsequent arrest to be “a gross abuse of the process of law,” quashed the proceedings, imposed exemplary costs of ₹10 lakh on the complainant, and directed protective measures for the appellants.

The Supreme Court set aside the Telangana High Court’s cryptic order that had declined to quash the FIR.

The FIR under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, and all consequential proceedings were annulled.

₹10,00,000 was imposed by the Supreme Court on the complainant (agent of a builder) for misuse of criminal law, payable to the appellants.

Telangana Police was instructed to provide security whenever appellants visit the State.

Supreme Court reprimanded the High Court for a “laconic and perfunctory” approach under Section 482 CrPC.

It held that the dispute is purely contractual and already sub judice in a civil suit; therefore, criminal prosecution is unwarranted.

The Court relied on the authority that discourages criminal proceedings where civil remedies suffice. 

In Rikhab Birani vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 823), Supreme Court reiterated that initiation of criminal proceedings for breach of contract, absent the element of initial dishonest intent, amounts to abuse. It was cited to underline that liability under Sections 406/420 IPC arises only when mens rea exists ab initio.

In Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673, Supreme Court laid down guiding principles for quashing FIRs where civil disputes masquerade as criminal. The Court adopted the “predominant object” test from Batra to sift civil from criminal contours.

In Sachin Garg vs. State of UP (2024 SCC OnLine SC 82), Supreme Court emphasised that monetary disputes stemming from contractual relationships should ordinarily travel the civil route barring demonstrable fraud. Relied upon to justify exemplary costs in egregious misuse cases.

In A.M. Mohan vs. SHO (2024) 3 SCR 722, Supreme Court was concerned with the arrest of senior citizens in a cheque-bounce context. The Court invoked it to condemn the undue custodial humiliation of the 70-year-old appellant.

In Lalit Chaturvedi vs. State of UP (2024 SCC 171), the Supreme Court held that High Courts must give cogent reasons while rejecting petitions under Section 482. The present decision extends that principle by tagging summary dismissals as “jurisdictional impropriety”.:

The Court posed the mirror of FIR narrative in front of the pleadings in the civil suit, identifying material inconsistencies concerning the sale consideration and subject-matter of the alleged oral agreement. This divergence showed embellishment only to invoke criminal jurisdiction.

Missing ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 IPC

-Section 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust): requires entrustment and subsequent dishonest misappropriation. Here, money was paid under a contractual arrangement; failure to perform does not ipso facto constitute misappropriation.

-Section 420 (Cheating): demands fraudulent intent at the inception of the transaction. The Court found no contemporaneous material suggesting that the appellants never intended to sell the land.

As a consequence, the FIR was devoid of a prima facie foundation in criminal law.

The Supreme Court has censured the High Court’s “pedantic” disposal, emphasising that Section 482 petitions are vital safety valves to curb misuse of criminal law. A failure to assign reasons undermines litigant confidence. 

The trial courts and High Courts have been put on notice that a mere overlap with civil proceedings necessitates a deeper look before allowing criminal prosecution to continue.

The ₹10-lakh cost sets a deterrent; litigants and lawyers may reassess the tactical filing of FIRs to pressure opposite parties.

The judgement illustrates that the Supreme Court is willing to overturn perfunctory Section 482 orders, prompting High Courts to craft reasoned decisions.

The Court issued directions for police protection and observations against needless custodial arrests can be invoked in similar scenarios nationwide.

Article 136 of the Constitution is invoked by the Supreme Court to exercise plenary powers not merely to correct lower-court errors but to quash proceedings outright where justice so demands.

Section 482 CrPC provides inherent power of High Courts to prevent abuse of court processes or to secure the ends of justice. It permits quashing of FIRs and criminal proceedings at a pre-trial stage.

An essential component of most criminal offences; it refers to the mental state indicating intent or knowledge of wrongdoing at the time the act was committed.

Article 136 of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court special leave to entertain appeals against any judgment, decree, or order from any court/tribunal in the country; an extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction.

Court can impose costs beyond simple reimbursement to penalise parties who have abused court processes or engaged in frivolous litigation.

Civil vs. Criminal Liability

Civil liability is concerned with private rights and remedies (e.g., damages, specific performance), whereas criminal liability involves offences against the State punishable by imprisonment, fine, etc. The same factual matrix can sometimes give rise to both, but courts examine intent and statutory ingredients to demarcate.

The judgement in Mala Choudhary vs. State of Telangana has affirmed that the criminal law cannot be a coercive debt-recovery mechanism or a substitute for civil adjudication. 

Reasoned orders are the sine qua non of justice delivery under Section 482 CrPC. 

The Supreme Court will directly quash proceedings and imposing punitive costs when injustice is manifest.

This judgment serves a double function—shielding bona-fide civil disputants from criminal harassment and cautioning complainants that strategic FIRs can rebound with heavy financial consequences. It is a lesson for litigants, lawyers, and trial courts. 

Prior to this, in the 6-page long judgement dated April 28, 2025, Justice Alok Kumar Pandey of Patna High Court in Ram Vinay Mahto vs. The State of Bihar (2025) had observed:"5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments has held that regular suit is appropriate remedy for settlement of dispute relating to property rights between private persons. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where there is violation of some statutory duty on the part of statutory authority is alleged. It is held that the High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies under the general law, civil or criminal are available. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution being special and extra-ordinary should not be exercised casually or lightly on mere asking by the litigant. In this context, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sohan Lal vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in AIR 1957 SC 529 and in Radhey Shyam & Anr. Vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors, reported in (2015) SCC 423 are quite relevant."

Prior to this, in his 6-page long judgement dated April 28, 2025, Justice Alok Kumar Pandey in Ram Vinay Mahto vs. The State of Bihar (2025) observed:"5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments has held that regular suit is appropriate remedy for settlement of dispute relating to property rights between private persons. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where there is violation of some statutory duty on the part of statutory authority is alleged. It is held that the High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies under the general law, civil or criminal are available. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution being special and extra-ordinary should not be exercised casually or lightly on mere asking by the litigant. In this context, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sohan Lal Vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in AIR 1957 SC 529 and in the case of Radhey Shyam & Anr. Vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors, reported in (2015) SCC 423 are quite relevant."

Earlier,  in a 7--page long judgement dated February 28, 2024 in Praduman Singh vs. The State of Bihar (2024), Justice Chandra Shekhar Jh relied on three Supreme Court's judgements in 1.M/s. Indian Oil Corporation vs. M/s. NEPC India Ltd. and Ors. [(2006) 6 SCC 736], Joseph Salvaraja A. vs. State of Gujarat and Others [(2011) 3 SCC (Crl.) 23]  and State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335] to reach similar conclusion. 

Supreme Court reverses judgment by Justice Vipul M. Pancholi,endorses argument by Senior Advocate Anjana Prakash

In Chandan Pasi & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N K Singh delivered a 11-page long judgement dated December 1, 2025, wherein, it concluded:".... we need not delve into the other grounds raised, questioning the concurrent conviction against the appellants herein. On this ground alone, the Appeals are allowed and the matter is sent back to the concerned Trial Court to recommence from the state of the recording of the Section 313 CrPC statements. We may clarify that the remand is limited to the cases of the three appellants before us and our observations herein shall not affect the sanctity of the findings already arrived at, qua the other accused persons. A trial is a function of memory; it is this memory that, when translated into spoken word testimony on oath, becomes evidence, and thus the same is susceptible to the vagaries of time. Keeping in view the fact that the offence is from the year 2016, and while being cognizant of the observations of the Constitution Bench in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. 11, we direct the concerned Trial Court to do the needful within four months from the date of the communication of this judgment." 

It added:"Registrar (Judicial) to communicate this judgment and jorder to the learned Registrar General, High Court of Judicature Patna, who will forthwith communicate the same to the concerned court for necessary action and compliance."

On earlier occasions also, Supreme Court, while upholding the acquittal of an accused, had observed that High Courts must be proactive while checking compliance with Section 313 of Cr.PC (Section 351 of BNSS) at the inception of criminal appeals and remand the matter to the trial court in case of lapses, to avoid acquittals.

In the case of Chandan Pasi, the Court was astounded to note that the statements given by all three accused persons were carbon copies of each other. The Court was unable to understand how such statements passed muster at the hands of the Trial Judge. On this ground alone, the Bench allowed the Appeals and sent the matter back to the Trial Court to recommence from the state of the recording of the Section 313 CrPC statements. “We may clarify that the remand is limited to the cases of the three appellants before us and our observations herein shall not affect the sanctity of the findings already arrived at, qua the other accused persons”.

Justice Karol headed bench ordered the Trial Court to recommence the recording of the Section 313 CrPC statements in a criminal case, after finding that statements given by three accused persons were photo copies of each other. The Supreme Court also held that the prosecutor is an officer of the Court and cannot act as a defence lawyer.

The Court also mentioned that one of the non-negotiable requirements of a fair trial is that the accused persons should have ample opportunity to dispel the case and claims of the prosecution against them.

The appeals before the Court arose from the final judgments and orders by Justices Vipul M. Pancholi and R. C. Malviya of the High Court affirming the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence in a murder case. A total of six persons were sentenced to life imprisonment. Three of them had approached the Supreme Court.

The appeals emerged from the final judgments and orders dated 4th September, 2024 and 26th September, 2024 passed by Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.443 of 2017, which had affirmed the judgment of conviction dated 27th March 2017 and the order of sentence dated 29th March 2017 passed by the Court of District & Session Judge, Buxar in Sessions Trial No.256 of 2016, whereby a total of six persons were sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, one year simple imprisonment each under Sections 448 & 323 along with Section 34 IPC with all of them running concurrently. Before the Supreme Court  three of the six convicts namely – Chandan Pasi, Pappu Pasi and Gidik Pasi. Here only it may be noted that there was a seventh accused person who was, by the process of law held to be a juvenile and thus dealt with in accordance with the applicable law. 

Justice Pancholi headed Division Bench of the High Court had passed an order dated September 26, 2024. It wrote:"The matter has been listed under the caption ‘To Be Mentioned’ for rectification of Uploading date and Transmission date appearing in the prescribed column at the bottom of the last page of the judgment, which has been recorded as ‘11.08.2024’, whereas the same ought to have been ‘11.09.2024’. The same is corrected. The date be read as 11.09.2024."

It had passed a 34-page long judgement in Joni Pasi @ Ravindra Pasi vs. The State of Bihar (2024), the High Court had delivered a judgement dated September 4, 2024 as well. It was head along with Birendra Pasi & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar (2024). The other 4 respondents were: Chandan Pasi, Pappu Pasi @ Hindustan Pasi, Botal Pasi and Gidik Pasi. 

Justice Pancholi had observed:"It is true that the prosecution has failed to examine independent witnesses. However, merely because such witnesses have not been examined, the version given by the prosecution witnesses cannot be discarded. It is well settled that the deposition given by the interested or the related witnesses cannot be discarded only on the ground that they are the interested witnesses. Their deposition is to be examined closely. If the deposition given by such witnesses is found trustworthy, reliable and plausible, conviction can be recorded on the basis of the deposition given by such witnesses, who are eyewitnesses to the incident in question. In the present case, PW’s 6, 7 and 9 are the near relatives of the deceased. However, their presence at the place of occurrence was natural. Even, in the present case, as observed jereinabove, the medical evidence also supports the version given by the said eyewitnesses. The prosecution has even proved the motive on the part of the appellants-accused to commit the alleged crime, i.e., both the accused side and the prosecution side were on inimical terms for very long and a girl of accused side was kidnapped by the prosecution side. Thus, in the present case, merely because the independent witnesses have not been examined, the version of the prosecution is not required to be discarded."

He recorded:"Learned senior counsel for the appellant has also contended that the police station case number has not been mentioned in the inquest report as well as in the postmortem report. However, it is required to be observed that inquest report was prepared at the place of incident at 08:45 AM and, at that time, formal FIR was not registered. Further, from the deposition of PW 3 (Investigating Officer), it is also revealed that he had sent the dead body for postmortem examination from the place of incident itself and, therefore, there are all chances that police station case number has not been mentioned even in the postmortem report. Even otherwise, formal FIR was registered at 01:45 PM (13:45 hours) and, as per the postmortem report (ext.-1), the dead body was received at 2:00 PM. Thus, merely because the police station case number has not been written in the postmortem report, it cannot be said that the case of the prosecution itself is doubtful. Even the defence raised by the appellants-accused before the trial court is also not required to be believed in view of the evidence produced by the prosecution. We have also gone through the reasoning recorded by the trial court and we are of the view that the trial court has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment and order."

He concluded:"Accordingly, both these appeals stand dismissed. 23.Since all the five appellants of Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 443 of 2017 are on bail, their bail bonds are hereby cancelled. The trial court is directed to take immediate steps for sending them to jail custody for serving the remaining sentence." Supreme Court has reversed this inference by Justice Pancholi. 

The factual background is that on 31st March 2016, the informant Kachan Pasi along with his father Ghughali Pasi, mother Kouta Devi and sister-in-law Dharmsheela Devi were returning from the fields of one Nanhaku Singh when the accused persons surrounded the above-named and assaulted Ghughali Pasi with a katta, who died as a result thereof. Particular allegations of such assault were also levelled against Joni Pasi @Ravindra Pasi. 

The Trial Court had convicted. All the accused persons before the Trial Court filed appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 19733 in which the High Court upheld the findings of the Court below.

Ms. Anjana Prakash was the Senior Counsel for the appellants, who is a former judge of the Patna High Court. h

The primary contention in the SLPs rested on the noncompliance of Section 313, CrPC. The Supreme Court had indicated in the order issuing notice that, should the ground of proper compliance be made out, only then, we would proceed to examine other grounds.

Justice Karol observed: 'One of the non-negotiable requirements of a fair trial is that the accused persons should have ample opportunity to dispel the case and claims of the prosecution against them. This ample opportunity can take many forms, whether it is adequate representation through counsel or the opportunity to call witnesses to present their side of the case or to have the occasion to answer each and every allegation against them, on their own, in their own words. The last one happens under Section 313 CrPC. This Court, in many judgments, delineated the scope and object of Section 313 CrPC. The position is no longer up for debate. Even so, we may refer to certain pronouncements for the sake of completeness."

He observed: “It is equally disturbing for us to see that in the desire to secure a conviction for the accused persons, the prosecutor also let their duty of assisting the Court in conducting the examination of the accused under this section fall by the wayside. The prosecutor is an officer of the Court and holds a solemn duty to act in the interest of justice. They cannot act as a defence lawyer, but for the State, with the sole aim of making the gauntlet of punishment fall on the accused.”

He noted that the primary contention in the Special Leave Petition was based on the noncompliance of Section 313, CrPC. The Court explained that the accused persons should have ample opportunity to dispel the case and claims of the prosecution against them. He underlined: “This ample opportunity can take many forms, whether it is adequate representation through counsel or the opportunity to call witnesses to present their side of the case or to have the occasion to answer each and every allegation against them, on their own, in their own words. The last one happens under Section 313 CrPC”.

Under Section 351 of BNSS or Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, it is mandatory for the court to question the accused generally on the case after the prosecution evidence has been presented. This provision is crucial for ensuring that the accused has an opportunity to explain the evidence against them. The absence of such questioning can have adverse implications on the trial.

Section 351 of BNSS or Section 313 of the CrPC allows the court to directly question the accused to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against them. The provision is intended to:

-Ensure the accused understands the allegations and evidence against them.

-Provide the accused an opportunity to explain or rebut the evidence.

-Assist the court in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.

Section 313 is a mandatory provision. It ensures that the principles of natural justice are upheld by giving the accused a chance to respond to the evidence presented by the prosecution.

If the court fails to put relevant questions to the accused under Section 313, it can lead to a miscarriage of justice. The necessity to question the accused under Section 313 CrPC is fundamental to a fair trial.